1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
f
Improving Student Attitudes about Learning Science and Student Scientific Reasoning Skills
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aas/journal/aer/11/1/10.3847/AER2009067
1.
1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. , Waters, M. , and Le, A.-P. 2008, “Representations of Nature of Science in High School Chemistry Textbooks Over the Past Four Decades,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20226
2.
2. Adams, W. K. , Perkins, K. K. , Podolefsky, N. S. , Dubson, M. , Finkelstein, N. D. , and Wieman, C. E. 2006, “New Instrument for Measuring Student Beliefs About Physics and Learning Physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes About Science Survey,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 2, 010101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010101
3.
17. Bao, L. , Cai, T. , Koenig, K. , Fang, K. , Han, J. , Wang, J. , Quing, L. , Ding, L. , Cui, L. , Luo, Y. , Wang, Y. , Li, L. , and Wu, N. 2009, “Learning and Scientific Reasoning,” Science, 323(5914), 586.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1167740
4.
3. Clough, M. P. 1997, “Strategies and Activities for Initiating and Maintaining Pressure on Students’ Naïve Views Concerning the Nature of Science,” Interchange, 28(2–3), 191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007309107180
5.
4. Clough, M. P. , and Olson, J. K. 2004, “The Nature of Science Always Part of the Science Story,” The Science Teacher, 71(9), 28.
6.
5.Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physics Science (EBAPS) home page. http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/home.htm, 09/27/2007.
7.
6. Elby, A. , Frederiksen, J. , Schwarz, C. , and White, B. 2001, “The Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science,” www.flagguide.org.
8.
7. Lederman, N. G. 1992, “Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.v29:4
9.
9. Lederman, N. G. , Abd-El-Khalick, F. , Bell, R. L. , and Schwartz, R. 2002. “Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learner’s Conceptions of Nature of Science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.v39:6
10.
10. McComas, W. F. 2004, “Keys to Teaching the Nature of Science,” The Science Teacher, 71(9), 24.
11.
11. Michaels, E. , and Bell, R. 2003, “The Nature of Science and Perceptual Frameworks,” The Science Teacher, 70(8), 36.
12.
12. Miller, J. D. , 1989, “Scientific literacy,” in Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (San Francisco, California), 23 p.
13.
13. Miller, J. D. 1998, “The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy,” Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
14.
14. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National Research Council, and Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, 1996, National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
15.
15. Parker, L. C. , Krockover, G. H. , Lasher-Trap, S. , and Eichinger, D. C. 2008, “Ideas About the Nature of Science Held by Undergraduate Atmospheric Science Students,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(11), 1681.
16.
16. Sandoval, W. A. 2003, “The Inquiry Paradox: Why Doing Science Doesn’t Necessarily Change Ideas About Science,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Computer-Based Learning in Science Conference, eds. C. P. Constantinou and Z. C. Zacharia, 825.
17.
18. Slater, T. , Adams, J. P. , Brissenden, G. , and Duncan, D. K. 2001, The Physics Teacher, 31, 8.
18.
19.Stempien, J. 2007, private communication.
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aas/journal/aer/11/1/10.3847/AER2009067
Loading

Figures

Image of Figure 1.

Click to view

Figure 1.

The first “science vs pseudoscience” assignment was given out in the first week of class.

Image of Figure 2.

Click to view

Figure 2.

Six EBAPS questions solicited differences in student responses from the Control Class and the Test Class that were statistically significant. Test class: green circles; control class: red squares.

Image of Figure 3.

Click to view

Figure 3.

(a) Test Class and (b) Control Class responses to the EBAPS question, “When it comes to science, students either learn quickly, or not at all.” On the x-axis, 2 represents “strongly disagree,” 1 represents “disagree,” 0 is neutral, −1 “agree,” and −2 “strongly agree.”

Image of Figure 4.

Click to view

Figure 4.

Students in the first week of astronomy instruction (“No astronomy studied”) misunderstand the use of the word “theory” when speaking of scientific theories.

Tables

Generic image for table

Click to view

Table 1.

Percentage responses of the actual data shown in Figure 3, along with expected values if both were drawn from the same population.

Generic image for table

Click to view

Table 2.

Number of students in the control and test classes associated with each type of response. The type of response represents a category of student responses, not the actual students’ wording. Table represents data derived from a subset of 116 students from both the Control and Test classes.

Abstract

Student attitudes about learningscience and student ideas about the nature of science were compared at the end of two astronomy courses taught in Fall 2007, a course with a traditional astronomy curriculum and a transformed course, whose traditional astronomy curriculum was supplemented by an embedded curriculum that explicitly addressed the nature of science and student metacognition (i.e., thinking about one’s own thinking.) The embedded curriculum in the transformed course gave students practice at evaluating examples of valid science and pseudoscience found on the internet; it also provided students opportunities to discuss what they think about learningscience. Student attitudes and ideas were assessed using the epistemological beliefs assessment for physical science (EBAPS) survey, interviews, and written responses to an open-ended exam question. Our results indicate that the embedded curriculum led the majority of students in the transformed course to think that anyone can learn science, whereas a majority of students in the traditional course thought that only individuals with innate abilities can learn science and think scientifically. Students in the transformed course also reported much more confidence in their ability to evaluate the scientific validity of information found on the internet. Furthermore, students from the transformed course valued making sense of science more than students from the traditional course. The embedded curriculum could readily be used in any course for nonscience majors, not just introductory astronomy.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aas/journal/aer/11/1/1.3673866.html;jsessionid=8q4ehdn46i7c3.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aas/journal/aer/11/1/10.3847/AER2009067&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aas/journal/aer
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Improving Student Attitudes about Learning Science and Student Scientific Reasoning Skills
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aas/journal/aer/11/1/10.3847/AER2009067
10.3847/AER2009067
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM